Staredit Network

Clinton did not know about 9/11, I think thats the most insane thing ive ever heard of regarding this. Do you truly believe that the former president of these united states knew about a major attack that could kill thousands of people and did nothing about it, please get real.

Please tell me this is a joke...How the did you come to the conclusion that Clinton knew about 9/11? Bush, on the other hand did know about it and just chose to ignore the warning.


And Bush does not have a speech impediment. The man is a semiliterate... and hes our president.... semiliterate.... president... think about that for a wile... The guy speaks like he took English as a second language!


Yes, and Bush's father and all his money had nothing to do with this. Politicians buy their way through fancy schools like Harvard all the time.


"The o'Reilly (sp?) factor" puts such a spin on things i have to take a Dramamine before listening to that crap. None of that even happened, do you honestly believe that he shot himself twice just to get a purple hart? What of the men who served with John Kerry, what do they have to say? If youer gonna bash Kerry then at least think of a more plausible scenario then what you have presented. Considering that you dont even belive in global warming, and that the human race is only responcible for 4% of polution, and that volcanoes are the real culprit, i hardly see why you would care what kind of car Kerrys wife drives. And i do not think you know what "Deja Vu" means!


Plus! Your ing denying the existence of global warming! Thats the most blatantly retarded thing ive herd in a long time. That thing about scientists producing evidence of global warming was pretty incoherent but ill take a whack at it-- its bull ! There is lots of evidence to back up global warming. How can you, someone with no scientific background, just discard a proven fact like global warming?


And your entitled to your opinion... you just stated a lot of your opinion as facts.

I just say DOWN WITH POLITICS!!!

people please stop saying that no one knew an attack on the world trade centers was going to happen. They knew something big was going to happen they just did not know what. The fact is several sources knew something like having a piece of the puzzle and not having the other pieces. The FBI had a piece, the CIA had a piece and so did the NSA. Seeing as how they were not working together they didnt know the other's had a piece so they kept it to themselves.



you're basically saying down with goverment ie anarchy, which would not work.



roflmfao, volcanoes ? lol.. ow my sides. Firstly those would have to be some major volcanoes. All of them would have to had at least been the size of St. Helens which reduced sun visibility by 2% (thats a whole damn lot).

The main cause of global warming is methane emissions from all of the cows we obnoxious Americans raise for meat. They fart a lot, apparently. They fart so hard that there's a hole in the ozone layer over Antartica. Strangely enough, the habitability statistics for Antarctica still remained the same after the hole appeared...

I think one day, Politics will lead us all into a bottomless pit of moral money, etc. It was politics and elections and such that got gangs going. (history channely is very informantive(it talks about history))

I skimmed though all of it and I think that I'm going to be sick. Am I the only Republican here? Am I the only one that has a freaking open-mind? Am I the only one that actually thinks about what I'm saying and doesn't repeat it like a freaking robot?

Bush did an decent job as president. While I don't agree with some of his decisions, I feel like he did what any person would do. He didn't 'lie' as someone put it, HE WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS TRUE, and he acted on that false evidence. We all make mistakes.

As for Bush being a 'coward', I would like to point out Kerry's militaty record. He somehow got three purple hearts in two months for SCRATCHES? He never engaged in combat, never got shot, and when he went home, he turned around and told America the the soldiers in Vietnam, the soldiers that fought next to him, were bad? Soldiers DIED in Vietnam for their country and he was home with a scratch that people at home get everyday, and he was calling them names?! WTF is wrong with that?

As for Republican bring 'idealistic', have you looked at what you are supporting by being a Demacrat? Take money from the people that earned it and give it to a bunch of crackheads and slackers? While not all people that are on welfare are like that, a goodly portion of them are. Ponder this:

A starving man walks into a fishing village. Being good people, they give him a meal. The starving man eats the fish and falls asleep. The next day, the village gives him another fish. And this goes on.

A couple months later, when the fish have moved on, the man demands another fish, saying that he is starving. They give him a fish, and they starve themselves. Eventually, they kick the man out of the village, because he does nothing and eats their food.

The man walks for several days without food and comes upon another fishing village. He is starved so he asks for food. And the villagers, being good people give him one. But the next day, when he is hungry and wants another fish, the village brings him out on a boat and teaches him how to fish.

Which village helped him more? The village that gave him fish for a month, starving themselves, or the village that gave him a fish the first day, and then taught him how to fish.

The moral is: You can give fish to a starving man, and he will eat for a day. Or you can teach him how to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime.

The village that gave him fish for a month was the Democrats. Well meaning people, yes. But they were hurt by it and they hurt the starving man by spoiling him.

The village that gave him a fish the first day was the Republicans. They understood that the man didn't need a hand out, he needed a hand up.

Think about it.

Actually, you've got in reverse. The Democrats would teach him; the Republicans, being the selfish, greedy louts they are, wouldn't even GIVE the man the fish.

Are you kidding? Look at the Democrats agenda. 'Boost welfare' Well, if you do that, then the people who are on welfare don't get jobs becuase THEY GET PAID LESS FOR WORKING. That's sick. No one should be able to live off of other people's hard earned money like that.

And that's when my arguement with Bush starts. Bush is pushing more tests, and I think that we should have less tests and more daily grades. Now, in Texas, they are teaching how to pass the TEKS (Texas test), and that it. Yes, that's wrong. No, we shouldn't get rid of the TEKS test.

If you would pay attetion to ANYTHING in politics instead of just listening to your parents (who are likely democrats), to your teachers (who are almost all democrats) and to your textbooks (that are all written by democrats), then maybe you could see that you have it all wrong.

Don't call people things without having evidence.

P.S. - Remember how you guys told everyone how Bush is losing money for our country? Look back at Clinton's policies. He increased welfare, increased some other stuff, and then didn't decrease anything else in return. That's what Bush had to get around.

Now you're the one making stuff up. Clinton did all that and left us with a budget surplus. That's right, he saved tons of money. Bush squandered it in his first year, and now we have a $500 billion deficit.

Oh, sure, the Republicans are all for teaching people to better themselves. Yep. Actually they just kick people out in the street and say "tough it out" (Bush just cut the budget for assisted living, throwing many veterans and old people out into the streets, remember?). So people starve and get sick, and die without shelter. Good solution! It does get rid of those annoying poor people!

Ok, politics. (Try not to get bored reading all this)

I'm assuming this is all about US politics, which I know considerably less about than British politics, but here's my view:

The current US administration is too right wing. The Republicans have traditionally (Going back to the end of WW1, when Republican isolationism contributed to the causes of WW2) destroyed US international relations with economic isolationism and aggressive foreign policy.
A good example of destroying relations is banning the UK's equivalent of the Republican party leader from visiting the White House for not supporting Bush in Iraq.

Of course, this kind of behaviour (The isolationism) should protect and benefit the USA's internal trade and economy, as it has done in the past (In other countries too - The British Empire used isolationism in a similar way) - but 9/11... you know what happened to the stock markets.

So, now we have an economically isolationist, self interested and aggressive Republican USA. That's not good for the world in general in any case, but without 9/11 the US itself may have benefited from Bush's policies.
Since 9/11 he has waged his war on terror, in the Middle-East specifically. These little escapades have blown the budget, but secured a nice share of oil that may begin to be beneficial in a few years time if things settle down.

I've noticed that many Americans are finally becoming disillusioned with Bush, and most of the few who remain loyal are (no offence) the kind of Americans that I hate: Flag waving, overly patriotic, xenophobic bigots.

Unfortunately, it seems that the Democrats are rather weak at the moment, and only peoples' horror at Bush's antics and the lack of a better option is bringing voters to the side of the 'Grey Man' a.k.a. John Kerry, who looks like an uncharismatic man; lacking in leadership qualities, from my viewpoint.

Now for a little summary of the parties battling for the White House:

The Republican Party:

Pros: Promote trade within the USA; puts America's safety before anything else.
Cons: Spend billions on wars; snub 'allies'; have blown budget; decreased civil rights; decreased international trade.

The Democrat Party:

Pros: At least it's not Bush; claim to soften Republican policies.
Cons: Uncharismatic leader; have become anonymous in international sphere; may have trouble picking up the pieces left by the Republicans if they come to power.

To conclude, I think you're best off with the Democrats of course, but they aren't very 'cool', are they?

Clinton - now there was an outstanding President in terms of his business and diplomatic skills. It's too bad he mixed business with pleasure...

I think that politics is just a bunch of corruption and crap. they make big speeches just to tell you nicely that the country is in trouble or that taxes are going up instead of just frickin saying it. If I have to vote, I'll vote for Kerry. Clonton was a great president. He would have been perfect, if it wasn't for those scandals. He even left us with a budget surplus. Bush squandered all of it and [SIZE=14]LEFT US WITH A 500 BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT.[SIZE=14][SIZE=7] And the war in Iraq is being proven to be unjustified. Who the hell wants a president like that!?!? Kerry may be uncharismatic, but at least he's not Bush, who screwed over the economy and shot taxes through the roof.

ok everyone here who supports bush doesnt know wtf theyre doing or theyre religious. EVERY one of my teachers is religious and thinks bush is out savior. now if they werent in a higher power i would slap them silly and show them what hes doing. that bastard wasted our 200 billion dollar surplus in about a year? his tax cuts arelowering our income becuase of all the money hes borrowing from everything. hes a redneck moron that only knows about oil and yes the government is so corrput its not even funny

Ok, I concede. I'm not going to argue anymore because, well, it's getting frustrating. You can go ahead and join your bandwagon along with every other person in this forum. But the fact remains, both sides have their own policies, that may conflict with yours.

Just a shout out to all the voters in America. LOOK AND SEE before you vote for our next president, or your next mayor, or your next representor. Try to look at their policies and see if they would work for you. God Bless.

P.S. - Don't flame anyone who is just stating their opinion. I tried not to, but I think that some of my statements came out to be... a little too harsh. Sorry.

What? I'm not jumping on any bandwagon here - I gave what I thought was an unbiased viewpoint.

Wasn't talking to you, Captain Will. I thought that your opinion was well writin and supported your opinion. It didn't call people names, blame people for things beyond their control, tell lies, or anything else that other people have done in this thread.

Politics is a hard thing to discuss without getting heated up about it, and I has simply trying to give a second opinion to the undecided portion of the forum.

Oh, and CaptainWill, most republicans support internation trade, they don't snub allies, and most of them, don't try to 'blow the budget'. You are trying to give an unbiased opinion with biased information and that's just not possible. Thanks for your opinion though, we enjoyed reading it.

Check this out! You might find that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in the 70's, the 80's, the 90's, and had SCUD missles that violated the international treaty that they were a part of. Oh and did you know that Iraq could of rebuilt it's biological warfare machine within weeks?

Keyword 'most.' Unfortunately it appears that the 'few' are the ones who are pulling the strings.

I can give a couple of examples of snubs against allies.
1. Ok, so France are fickle allies, but considering changing French Fries to 'Freedom Fries?' Come on! (This may just be urban legend, but it's what I heard across the Atlantic.)
2. Gibraltar celebrations 2004. American warship pulls out of celebrations for fears that celebration of British control of Gibraltar may anger Spain (Who aren't really your allies).

I didn't say that they were trying to blow the budget - maybe they weren't - but they have.
Certainly they have failed to ease their spiralling trade deficit:

1998: Trade Deficit of $229,759 Million
2003: Trade Deficit of $532,351 Million

Looking at the statistics though, it appears that they are actually exporting and importing products more than the last government did. So they could be helping international trade, although I'm assuming that the explosion of imports in 2003 was due to the war in Iraq and the need for munitions/supplies.

1998: Imports worth $911,896 Million
2003: Imports worth $1,257,122 Million

Of course, these statistics could mean nothing.

Politics, something that makes me sad and mad. I know there are good people in the government but there are way more corrupted people. Thinking that they steal money that can save hundreds of people make me angry...